Breaking down the question
This is a ten-mark question, so it demands a compact, tightly argued answer rather than an exhaustive survey. The key term is "dimensions of power" — the question wants you to show that power operates in several distinct forms, and then to connect each form to the way social hierarchies are built and sustained. The two verbs "construction" and "maintenance" matter: hierarchies must first be established and then reproduced over time, and different faces of power do this work.
A strong answer therefore avoids treating power as a single thing. It uses a recognised framework — most naturally Steven Lukes's three faces of power, supplemented by Weber, Gramsci and Foucault — to demonstrate that hierarchy rests not only on visible coercion but also on agenda-setting and the shaping of consciousness.
How to approach it
Given the mark weighting, be economical. State a working definition of power, then move quickly through its dimensions, linking each to hierarchy. Lukes's one-dimensional, two-dimensional and three-dimensional model gives you a ready analytical spine, and you can enrich it with Weber on authority, Gramsci on hegemony and Foucault on disciplinary power.
Illustrate briefly — caste, class and gender hierarchies all show power working through force, through control of agendas, and through internalised belief. Do not attempt an essay-length treatment; select and compress. The relevant theoretical background is developed in our notes on sociological theories of power.
Model answer
Power is the capacity to secure compliance and shape outcomes, and social hierarchies — the ranked arrangements of caste, class, gender and status — depend on it at every stage. Sociologists have shown that power is not one thing but operates in several dimensions, each contributing to how hierarchies are constructed and maintained.
The first and most visible dimension is coercive and decision-making power. Following Max Weber, power here is the ability to impose one's will despite resistance, whether through force or through legitimate authority. Dominant groups construct hierarchies by controlling the means of coercion and the machinery of the state, and by converting domination into legitimate authority so that subordinates obey as a matter of duty. Steven Lukes calls this the one-dimensional view, in which power is exercised in open conflict over decisions.
The second dimension is the power to control agendas. Here hierarchy is maintained not by winning open conflicts but by preventing certain issues from ever reaching the table. Lukes's two-dimensional view highlights this "mobilisation of bias": dominant groups keep questions of redistribution, caste privilege or gender inequality off the political agenda, so that grievances remain unvoiced and the existing order appears normal and unchallengeable.
The third and deepest dimension is ideological or structural power — the capacity to shape perceptions, preferences and beliefs so that subordinate groups accept their own subordination. Lukes's three-dimensional view converges with Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony, in which the ruling group secures consent by making its worldview appear as common sense. Michel Foucault extends this by showing how power is diffused through everyday discourse, knowledge and disciplinary practices that produce compliant subjects. Caste ideologies of purity and pollution, patriarchal notions of women's proper place, and meritocratic justifications of class inequality all illustrate how hierarchy is reproduced through internalised belief rather than open force.
In practice, these dimensions work together. Hierarchies are constructed through coercion and authority, defended through control of agendas, and made durable through ideology that turns domination into accepted order. The most stable hierarchies rely least on visible force, because power has become embedded in institutions and consciousness.
Examiner's perspective
For a ten-mark answer the examiner rewards clarity, an explicit framework and economy of expression. The most effective scripts use Lukes's three faces of power as an organising spine and connect each dimension to the construction and maintenance of hierarchy, enriching the account with Weber, Gramsci and Foucault. A brief illustration from caste, class or gender demonstrates application without inflating the answer.
Weak responses define power in a single Weberian sentence and then describe hierarchies generally, missing the plural "dimensions" the question specifies. To score well, name the dimensions, distinguish coercion from agenda-setting from ideology, and show that durable hierarchy depends most on the invisible faces of power.